thanks for the link to the essay

First, I am sorry that your evangelical experience did not allow you to ask questions. That is certainly a tragedy that I'm ashamed of in certain circles. My experience, however, was different, thankfully. Christian circles should be the best place to ask questions!

Christology is vitally important to the faith. And the view on the incarnation informs the authority of Jesus and the multi-facets of His redemptive work.

Secondly, Hick's view seems very "Greek" and "Enlightenment" in approach and doesn't seem to consider the original authorial intent and audience perspective. What evidence or claims can he provide that the metaphorical view was the view of the authors of the Bible and the original audience? This "metaphorical incarnation" perspective doesn't really match up with the corpus of Scripture.

Thirdly, keep asking questions! Certainly do not check your brain at the door! But please be sure to ask questions of the sources that you go to when seeking answers (i.e. don't neglect to question Hick, Borg, and Crossan!)

Jeremy,

I think Hick very much takes the view of the biblical authors into account. However, he doesn't assume that the whole point of reading the bible is to adopt the pre-enlightenment worldview of its authors.

To be "Greek" would be very true to the new testament which is itself full of Greek thought and philosophy. Plato's work had been around for several centuries by then.

If you are suggesting that Hick favors a post-enlightenment worldview then I agree. Don't we all? If I have to put my money on a pre-enlightenment view versus a post-enlightenment view then I'm betting on the latter. Unlike many modern liberals, however, I'm not ready to throw out the stories simply because we now know that the they are not literally true.

Nice post. You have expressed many of my own preferences.

Hick's definition of "theology" gives too much to Kant's attempt to cordon off the divine realm from all aspects of human knowledge. Consequently, and unfortunately, so do you. Are we so divine that we should not allow God to be God and to reveal his identity to us, even if that identity comes shrouded in mystery?

The biggest problem with a "theology as myth" position is that when you get down to it, it's very difficult to convince another person that God loves her and gave himself for her if you don't truly believe that God does such a thing, since such a statement is a "story" with no true referent, no basis in actuality or reality. "God," by Hick's lights, is simply a symbol of your hopes and dreams - nothing more, nothing less. So when you tell me that God loves me and gave himself for me, I am meant to hear -- not that what you say is true -- but that you hope God loves me, and that you really can't be sure whether he does, in fact.

Of course, such a hope isn't a bad one to have, but going around telling everyone that you hope God loves us doesn't exactly sound like good news to me. The Good News is that, yes, God DOES, in fact, love us and did, in fact, give himself for us. And that's what it means to be "Evangelical" in the barest sense of the term.

The current preoccupation with a romantic notion of myth is misguided -- at least for an Evangelical (barely defined). But fortunately (and ironically!), given its inability truly to persuade people to its cause for lack of substance, it probably won't prove to be so influential as to cause real concern.

Kellen,

Thanks for your comments. I will follow up with a more detailed post on this, but you didn't exactly understand the whole point of how incarnation is described through a metaphor.

The whole idea of incarnation is not IF God is reality but HOW God becomes a reality. God is incarnated into the physical world as we carry out God's will. God's love becomes "real" as people embody God's values, character, and priorities.

The incarnational nature of God means we don't have to simply "hope" a supernatural being cares for us. As God's will is incarnated by humans, it is very much "real". It becomes a tangible experience. We don't convince people that an external God loves them, we actually love them. The story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is a perfect metaphor for how God's love does become "real".

Mike,

...you didn't exactly understand the whole point of how incarnation is described through a metaphor.

Well, yes, Mike, I did and do understand your use of "metaphor." The definition of "metaphor" with which you're operating is self-reflexive, really closer to something like "myth" than true metaphor, which entails a referent beyond itself. You wish to suggest that religious language is not indicative of any historical fact (i.e., there need not have been any actual, historical resurrection of Jesus from the dead), but that it rather points to some shared human psychological experience of the divine (e.g., a particular human feeling of despair is "resurrected" insofar as we experience God).

The whole idea of incarnation is not IF God is reality but HOW God becomes a reality. God is incarnated into the physical world as we carry out God's will. God's love becomes "real" as people embody God's values, character, and priorities.

No - God was incarnated into the physical world in the man Jesus Christ, who was the only human ever to have carried out God's will. God's love became real insofar as Jesus Christ came, lived, taught, suffered, died, was raised from the dead, and lives now. The doctrine of the incarnation is not a general "God-becomes-the-world." The doctrine of the incarnation traditionally conceived is that God's Word to humankind actually became flesh in the person of a Jewish man named Jesus, who came out of Nazareth. Your attempt to extrapolate from that traditional doctrine of a particular fact some kind of a general rule that "God" becomes the world is inventive, but it isn't recognizably Christian.

We don't convince people that an external God loves them, we actually love them.

Right. That's precisely what's problematic with your account. Say I'm a non-believer. You come to me and love me. Okay. Thanks for doing that, Mike. That was kind of you. Why should I go to church, though? Why bother saying prayers to some Trinity or a dude named Jesus? Who cares about "metaphors" of God's love if "we don't convince people that an external God loves them"? In short, why should I love other people if God doesn't, in fact, love me? If God does not exist apart from me, then I am God! And the way I see it, I should just love me! My proposed alternative: we do convince people that an external, real God does love them, and we actually love them.

Mike,

One more thought: I should add that I think you're trying to get the doctrine of the incarnation to do what the celebration of Pentecost is meant to do. In other words, because of Hick's slippery construction, you've confused the Son with the Spirit, speaking in trinitarian terms. The Son becomes incarnate; the Spirit mediates God's being to believers.

Kellen,

I'm well aware of traditional literal interpretations of incarnation, but thanks for the recap. I'm clearly NOT trying to hold to the traditional doctrines. However, I would argue that what is not considered "traditional" was not necessarily original in early pre-Nicene Christianity.

you said: "Why should I go to church, though? Why bother saying prayers to some Trinity or a dude named Jesus?"

That is a good point. I don't really do either in the traditional form. Yet, I would suggest we go to church or temple or a mosque to have healthy and necessary community. Why else would you? As for prayer, I would suggest that openly sharing our hopes, dreams, concerns, and despair is not only therapeutic but it is integral to the concept of community.

The point of incarnation is that having a transcendent being love you is useless unless it can somehow become manifest or incarnate in reality.

If the only reason we love is because an external deity loves us in return, then are we really showing love or is that simply a selfish transaction based on an individual cost benefit analysis?

I do believe God "exists" outside of ourselves. However, God became incarnate (manifested) in Jesus so that God was a real part of the world. God becomes manifest in many ways. Without incarnation, God is extra-worldly or "unreal". Also, what would it mean to "exist" outside of reality? Not only is that unexplainable, it is beyond experience. Incarnation is how something "unreal" becomes "real". Incarnation is how something beyond existence comes to exist.

I'm clearly NOT trying to hold to the traditional doctrines.

Why not? Too simplistic? Too boring? I can assure you that close attention to any pre-Nicene, or even pro-Nicene theologies will prove that the various doctrines there elaborated are far from being either boring or simplistic. And if they're not boring or simplistic, why not take them up as serious, thoughtful ways of constructing the issues?

However, I would argue that what is not considered "traditional" was not necessarily original in early pre-Nicene Christianity.

On the basis of whose scholarship? Walter Bauer's? Or his students at Harvard? The problem here is that we're talking about the doctrine of the incarnation. The first chapter of John's Gospel states it quite traditionally, and pretty early on.

Yet, I would suggest we go to church or temple or a mosque to have healthy and necessary community. Why else would you?

To worship corporately the living God who has made himself known to us in grace and truth. You can get "community" at the local pub. And that's not a bad idea, either!

If the only reason we love is because an external deity loves us in return, then are we really showing love or is that simply a selfish transaction based on an individual cost benefit analysis?

We don't love in order to be love; we love because he first loved us.

That last point was good. Son and Holy Ghost are also wonderful metaphors for God becoming reality. We need somekind of symbol or wordplay in order to make an something outside of human reality seem real. The metaphor or "myth" of a son or a ghost works well.

My point was not to suggest that the Son or Spirit are "myths," simply to say that you've confused the work of the [real] Spirit with the work of the [real] Son.

Kellen,

It has nothing to do with boring or simplistic. It has to do with reason.

That last point was good. Son and Holy Ghost are also wonderful metaphors for God becoming reality. We need somekind of symbol or wordplay in order to make an something outside of human reality seem real. The metaphor or "myth" of a son or a ghost works well.

"The first chapter of John's Gospel states it quite traditionally, and pretty early on."

Yes, and John's Gospel also states it very clearly in metaphorical language. Was Jesus literally a "word"? Was Jesus literally a lamb?

Was Jesus literally a "word"? Was Jesus literally a lamb?

Yes, and yes! Jesus is God's Word, God's speech to humanity, that God is for us and not against us. And Jesus is, indeed, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, fulfilling the Old Testament hopes that such a lamb could be led to slaughter.

Kellen,

Now come on. That is not honest and does your argument a great injustice. Even the most literalistic fundamentalist would not try to suggest "word" and "lamb" are literal. Do you really mean to suggest that Jesus had wool or that Jesus was a figure of speech?

Only the most literalistic fundamentalist would think that, by saying that Jesus "is" the Word and the Lamb, I meant to suggest that Jesus had wool or was a figure of speech. God's Word to the people Israel was never any mere "figure of speech." It was a covenant. Jesus is the fulfillment of that covenant, and as such, is God's Word, God's speech to Isreal and the world, in the flesh. And no, of course Jesus didn't "have wool." He - the human being crucified on the cross - was the lamb that bore the curse of the world's sin and sins to bear them away.

Kellen,

I think what you meant to say is that "lamb of God" and "word of God" are metaphors for what Jesus had become to Christians writing about him after his death.

I would suggest that "son of God", "prince of peace", and many other terms are similar symbolic expressions of what Jesus had become to these communities of faith. Incarnation is a way of saying that God's values and character are present in a person. In my view, Jesus definately embodied the values and character of God. His life and story still incarnates God for us.

Mike,

No, I meant what I said. Jesus is the "Word of God" in the flesh. That is not some mere metaphorical expression for the religious experience of the earliest Christian writers. It is a particular fact of divine reality that has universal consequences.

Also, with regard to ancient Christian doctrine you wrote of your decision not to engage it that It has nothing to do with boring or simplistic. It has to do with reason.

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? That you have engaged ancient Christian tradition and found it irrational? I find that hard to believe.

The New Testament records that Jesus of Nazareth was a perfectly normal man, born of perfectly normal parents, in a perfectly normal fashion.

However, when the New Testament writings fell into the hands of the Hellenist and, subseqently, Latin 'fathers,' the teachings underwent a change in accordance with the predilections of those particular peoples.

Because their minds were set in the key of a different structure, they retrojected onto the scriptures their own prevailing religions.

Doctrines such as the 'Miraculous Incarnation,' the 'Trinity' and the various 'Divinity' teachings were crystallised by the disputes among early Gentile church fathers who looked into the Pool of Narcissus (the scriptures), saw themselves imaged there, and then projected this, their own image, upon the world through the medium of ecclesiastical councils called by Roman Emperors from 325AD onwards.

Christianity today bears the image, not of the mind of Jesus and the character of the Supreme Being, but of early Gentile theology. Don't you think it's more than time for some housecleaning?

Vynette,

Thanks for your additions to the discussion. Those are great points and deserve our attention. I do think we should consider how we approach what you call a "housecleaning". We have to be sure not to sweep out people with the dust. This has been hard for me to learn. Conservatives are not some evil sect of divisive people. They are very often compassionate well-intentioned people. In the past few centuries, liberal theologians did a poor job of confronting ancient traditions. We should reconsider how we approach these changes. Change can be painful and confusing for people that have never studied scripture from the perspective of biblical criticism.

Kellen,

Yes, I have engaged, studied, and lived these ancient Christian doctrines all my life. By "irrational", I mean that I find the literal interpretations of these myths and metaphors to be irrational, unbelievable, and I feel destined to subject Christianity to a future of irrelevance. However, I don't ask anyone who accepts these myths as facts to change their view. I feel you could reasonably come to similar conclusions about changing our lives and our world. I myself could not reconcile the worldview of these ancient authors with reality. In addition, the more I study these traditions the more I am convinced that this tradition developed just like all the worlds myths and symbols. I am convinced right now that a more valuable layer of truths come to light once we drop the literal interpretation.

If you can embrace love, compassion, justice, peace, non-violence, and transformation while still believing in the traditional view of supernatural incarnation, then by all means, don't throw out your views on my account. I do hope you will consider that your own interpretation is not the ONLY way to interpret the story. I'll try to do the same. I feel there is much room for agreement.

Yes, I have engaged, studied, and lived these ancient Christian doctrines all my life.

Okay. In speaking of "ancient Christian doctrine," I do not mean to indicate whatever fundamentalist tradition you grew up in and grew out of. I mean, literally, ancient Christian doctrine. In other words, I mean the theological writings and teaching of Augustine of Hippo, and Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria and Evagrius of Pontus and Origen and Irenaeus of Lyons, and Anselm, Aquinas, Erasmus, Calvin, Luther, Kierkegaard, Edwards, and a whole host of others who have come before us in the faith, who have thought long and hard about the problem of God and the world we live in, and who have reached various and variously appealing solutions to that problem. If you're telling me that you've engaged that doctrine, then I'll pipe down when you say that you find their adherence to the actuality of the incarnation a silly thing. If, on the other hand, you have not truly engaged their writings and thoughts with sustained attention and careful reflection, then I think you're being just a tad bit dismissive, and I would encourage you to take them up and read them. You may be surprised that you will find far more thoughtful constructions of the solution than the arid fundamentalism of your past has given you. You may also find more fruitful conceptions of love, justice, peace, non-violence, and transformation than the standard orthodoxy of modern liberal politics can give you. Of course, you would already find more fruitful conceptions of those things if only you looked first and solely upon Christ.

If you can embrace love, compassion, justice, peace, non-violence, and transformation while still believing in the traditional view of supernatural incarnation, then by all means, don't throw out your views on my account. I do hope you will consider that your own interpretation is not the ONLY way to interpret the story. I'll try to do the same. I feel there is much room for agreement.

I know that my interpretation is not the only way to interpret the story, as you say. But I also think my interpretation, though not beyond criticism, is a better way to situate things than yours is. That is because, on the main, as I said in the beginning, you have given over too many of your intellectual presuppositions to the work of the German philosopher Immanual Kant, who worked really hard to carve a thick, black line between the world of human cognition and the world of divine reality. I'm not convinced that Kant had a revelation. I am convinced that Paul did.

Kellen,

you said:"If you're telling me that you've engaged that doctrine, then I'll pipe down when you say that you find their adherence to the actuality of the incarnation a silly thing"

I've never said it was "silly". I put bad enough words in my mouth, so don't help me. I've said their worldview is in many cases unreasonable for many people today. I feel that trend will continue to grow as more and more of what we currently label "supernatural" and "superstition" are placed into question by biology and neuroscience.

Of course I've read many of those theologians from Augustine to Anselm to Kierkegaard. I'm not sure what you think I am. I can't say I've read every word, but I'm very familiar with the history of Christian theology, the historic debates, and the different conclusions. I've definately engaged those doctrines. I've also read many of the modern theologians who have worked through those writings more recently in a more modern context.

you said: "Of course, you would already find more fruitful conceptions of those things if only you looked first and solely upon Christ."

It is kind of hard to accept that from you given that you just made a play for the "authority" of later theologians over Jesus. Kant is someone I've read about but never read directly. Like all theologians on your list, each subsequent one responds to and expands on the work of those who came before. Speaking about the unspeakable is an evolving process. The last thing we should do is stop processing or stop thinking.

lastly you said: "I'm not convinced that Kant had a revelation. I am convinced that Paul did"

This really articulates the problem. You've not used logic and reason in your conclusions. You've based authority on an arbitrary determination about who had a "real" supernatural revelation. I have no problem with you doing that and drawing conclusions from what you feel is a higher authority. But it seems disingenuous to try and claim that your process is "reasonable" when it is clearly based on a subjective determination of who correctly heard from God. You may be right and I can't prove otherwise, but your logic is not reasonable or in any way probable. Miracles may in fact happen but they are not probable nor reasonable. I'll be gald to consider any evidence to the contrary.

The issue at hand in my post is that we have no longer need to tie the Christian faith to an ancient worldview that is slowly loosing its grip.

Of course I've read many of those theologians from Augustine to Anselm to Kierkegaard. I'm not sure what you think I am. I can't say I've read every word, but I'm very familiar with the history of Christian theology, the historic debates, and the different conclusions. I've definately engaged those doctrines. I've also read many of the modern theologians who have worked through those writings more recently in a more modern context.

Very well. I do apologize for even suggesting otherwise!

It is kind of hard to accept that from you given that you just made a play for the "authority" of later theologians over Jesus.

Huh? If I recall correctly, it was I who was arguing that Jesus is the real incarnation of God. That other [ancient] people who have assented to that notion may have better constructions of the way it works and what it means than you or me does not mean that the Word Jesus Christ is superseded by any particular theology! And I would never suggest that.

The last thing we should do is stop processing or stop thinking.

Agreed. I would suggest that part of the process of thinking today is thinking critically about the nature and state of modern theology on the whole. That includes questioning seriously folks like Hick, Knitter, Borg, et alia, who wish to reduce theology to psychological experience, a la William James.

But it seems disingenuous to try and claim that your process is "reasonable" when it is clearly based on a subjective determination of who correctly heard from God.

That's certainly a fair characterization of my position. But I would suggest that there is no such thing as a "rational" (i.e., "neutral") philosophy that does not worship something, or that does not appeal to some higher authority. (On that score, you may want to see Newbigin's book.)

...an ancient worldview that is slowly loosing its grip.

You really think people like Plato are getting less popular? And even if they're not getting less popular, do you really think they're not being read on the basis of thought content alone (as opposed to being read simply as historical "artifacts")? I'm here to tell you, the twenty-four people signed up to read Plato's Republic in the doctoral seminar I'm in would certainly not agree that any particular "ancient worldview" is as irrelevant as you seem to think. Same goes for the old crusty Christian thinkers.

Kellen,

As for Plato. I'm a fan, though I disagree with many things he wrote and have not exhausted all his work. I never said he was less popular, but I would suggest that his worldview is not as well accepted as it was before the enlightenment. I would imagine that very few of those people reading Plato in your class are doing it so that they can reject their modern understanding of the universe and adopt his worldview.

The same is true with Christian theologians. The are valuable to us. Studying them is vital to understanding how we got to where we are. It is possible to read the work of ancient people (or modern people) and draw value from their thought process while still disagreeing with their conclusions. Not one person on your list of theologians agrees with the other.

What makes Plato so valuable to us today is his ability to think, his process for thinking, and his willingness to discuss things that had often been previously accepted merely because of superstition and divinely assigned authority. Of course, he still did not reject all superstitions. He was very influenced by them. His ancient descriptions of body/mind dualism are rejected by modern science. Those views have not held up to stand the test of time. Neither has more recent philosophers like Descartes. We can't simply draw a line in the sand of philosophy and decide we are done thinking or making progress in our understanding of the universe. Aquinas much prefered Aristotle and therefore rejected much of the platonic views of other theologians.

Are you trying to suggest there is one Christian theology, metaphysics, and worldview that has been in place since the beginning of Christianity?

I neglected one of your questions/points:

you said:"If I recall correctly, it was I who was arguing that Jesus is the real incarnation of God"

I too affirm that Jesus was the real incarnation of God. I truely believe the story of Jesus demostrates God's values played out in human form through one of the most beautiful narratives I've ever read. For me, that is God incarnate in the world.

Are you trying to suggest there is one Christian theology, metaphysics, and worldview that has been in place since the beginning of Christianity?

By no means. Theologies and metaphysics are all subject to revision and criticism, finally to the judgment of Christ. I'm just trying to get you to realize that the thought of John Hick needs to be critically evaluated as well....

We should definately question Hick and anyone else. I don't think I've suggested anything else. That is why I've posted a review and opened the discussion.

Mike,

As you say, change can be painful and confusing - and I'm sure it was even more so for the contemporaries of Jesus.

No matter how threatening, however, the greater good can be served by demonstrating that the doctrines of 'orthodoxy' are unscriptural, and fatally distort the New Testament teachings.

For instance, the New Testament claims that Jesus was a man who, from a position of the greatest weakness, challenged the values of those in the greatest authority, and paid the penalty for so doing.

This Jesus was a man with whom we can all identify, with whom we can share suffering, with whom we can empathise. This Jesus is the man we are expected to emulate.

The doctrines of 'orthodoxy' present us with exactly the opposite scenario - a god-man possessing from the very beginning a divine character impossible to emulate.

The message of the New Testament is that the Kingdom of God on earth can be established by universal emulation of Jesus' character in action. If it is possible for one man, then it is possible, and expected, of all men and women.

Mike,

One last thing to close the conversation. And by the way, thank you for truly trying to converse with me. That's not an easy thing to do on blogs. They're really very bad for "conversation," especially theological conversation. I'd much rather have had a couple beers with you down in Georgia, because I'm sure there are some fantastic places there for that sort of thing! At any rate, I've just realized that there is a book that we both should read, and then, in, say, six months, maybe we could resume this conversation. Here it is.

Cheers,

Kellen

Kellen,

I've been known to do a book swap with people of differing opinions. My reading list is pretty full right now, but maybe later we could try that option. Of course I would expect you to read a book of my choice in return.

Yeah, my list is pretty full as well. I've never read Plantinga's work; I'm just aware of what it is supposed to have accomplished, namely, the recovery of belief as a rationally credible enterprise. Truth told: I'd like to take a seminar with him in the next few years and drink from the source, so to speak. In the process, I would naturally read Hick's work, as it is dealt with directly and at length by Plantinga.

pax Christi tibi,

kp

Kellen, Hick's books probably wouldn't be a good choice for you. It is just too far from your base views. You'd likely just get mad. I'd recomend someone like Marcus Borg of maybe Dominic Crossan if you wanted to get a better intro to that line of thinking without stretching you to the point of frustration.

Mike,

I've already become familiar with Marcus Borg's work (especially the book he did as a back-and-forth with Tom Wright) and am aware of Crossan's - have been since my sophomore year of college. I've been aware of John Hick's approach to pluralism since I took a course on the works of Lesslie Newbigin, though I've never spent much time reading Hick qua Hick. I don't hold my theological positions uncritically, as you seem to think. I'm not afraid of what any particular theologian claims. For instance, I don't "get mad" at Marcus Borg for saying that "the empty tomb is irrelevant to Christian faith." I just think he is wrong, and unfortunately confused, in his assessment. I cite the recent work of Robert Jenson as evidence that there are other thinking minds out there that don't disagree with me on that score.

All that to say, I do look forward to reading Hick's work. My suspicion is that Plantinga has made a strong case for an alternative to Hick that is intriguing and thoughtful - i.e., not unthinking, blind, or in any way "fundamentalist."

To Robert Jenson, add a young John Updike:

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the
molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that - pierced - died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of
beauty, lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

Very well said, Mike. My experience mirrors your own. I find Hick's view of the incarnation quite liberating in that it alleviates the tension between my love of Jesus and my troubled intellect.